Slashdot Mirror
Kaspersky Calls For 'Internet Interpol'
angry tapir writes "With cybercrime now the second largest criminal activity in the world, measures such as the creation of an 'Internet Interpol' and better cooperation between international law enforcement agencies are needed if criminals are to be curtailed in the future, Kaspersky Labs founder and security expert Eugene Kaspersky has argued. He said, 'We were talking about that 10 years ago and almost nothing has happened. Sooner or later we will have one. I am also talking about Internet passports and having an online ID. Some countries are introducing this idea, so maybe in 15 years we will all have it.'"
Wow, I'm afraid I have to conclude this guys is possibly a little too full of himself.
If we ever get anywhere near a "single secure cyberspace", we're pretty much all screwed.
Governments will use this to stifle your privacy, your rights, and every other thing they can think of. They'll make sure they monitor everything you do, and ensure you don't do anything they don't approve of.
Anybody who thinks the solution to cybercrime is to more or less lock down the internet like this ... well, I think they deserve a series of well placed kicks to the groin. I can only see this as more or less fascism -- though I'm sure I'll be accused of hyperbole.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I really want a button ... that brings up a full trace to the person who initiated the message...
You and Gaddafi both.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
>Then make it illegal
Yeah. We could even add a constitutional amendment! Something like:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Then all we'll need is to figure out who will enforce this fine law.
Nothing will happen because, for all its flaws, we designed the internet to survive government attempts to control it.
But we didn't design it to survive corporate attempts to control it. And that's where it will fall apart.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Anytime Yevgeny Kaspersky profers his advice on how internet security should work, it should be remembered that he is a former KGB officer.
This is really allow about making it easier for States to control what people do online.
Trouble is...we HAD a nice 4th amendment in the US constitution, however, the Supreme Court just kind fscked us on this one a day or two ago.
I'm worried when they can blow off the constitution so readily...if they can do that, well, they'll certainly NOT have a 2nd thought about blowing off an internet mandate about using info collected from it ....if the tool is there, the authorities WILL abuse it at some time in the future.
Their track record shows this....over and over again.
Remember how RICO was only supposed to be used to go after the mafia? Hmm...well, its being used in new and creative ways all the time.
If they can now kick down your door without a warrant just because they hear some (non-threatening sounds) and smell weed outside a bunch of apt. doors...they'll have no compunction about tracking your ass down by forced internet ID marked transactions, why wait for using it for criminal investigation, just continuously fishing for information on everyone...someone will slip and we'll get them, even if we have to change the laws and go after them retroactively.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It isn't the cops you should be worried about. Everything thing you do online has value to someone. It will provide them valuable market information. The fact that you don't click on the CNN link but do click on the Stormfront link is saleable to someone. The fact that you sort things in a list of items on Amazon by "best selling" rather than "lowest price" is worth something.
Now maybe individually these actions aren't worth much, but if a company can assemble many people's habits and actions together and offer them as a package so that trend analysis and forecasting can be done ... well, how much do you think Google was able to sell the brands of the routers actually be used in Chicago for? Better yet, how much do you think the brand names of routers in Highland Park (an affluent suburb) vs. brand names of routers in Wheeling (a mostly low-income suburb with trailer parks) is worth to DLink or Belkin?
This information is going to be collected and sold and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
In the same vein, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on Friday that its citizens have no right to resist even unlawful police entry into their homes.
... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," [Justice] David said, [writing for the 3-2 majority].
"We believe